San Francisco Superior Court - What happens next? ...

Friday, December 24, 2004
San Francisco Superior Court What happens next? ...

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said he would rule as quickly as possible (likely by mid-January) on whether California's marriage law is constitutional. State law currently does not permit same-sex couples to marry. Judge Kramer told attorneys for both sides that written final submissions must be received by the court no later than January 14th. Under judicial practice the Judge has 90 days from January 14th to issue a decision.

This entire action is the first in a three (possibly two) step process. Whatever the decision, the case will be appealed to the next higher court, which is the California State Court of Appeals. The eventual and final destination of this case is the California State Supreme Court. It is possible the State Supreme Court may choose to hear the case directly and by-pass the appellate court, but it is not expected.

Judge Kramer made it clear that his courtroom is merely the first step in a formal three-step process when he said, " I want a clean record and as prompt a resolution as possible because I'm fully aware I'm just the first stop. I want all of these people sitting in the Court of Appeals as quickly as I can get them there."


What this case all about? ...

This is a consolidated lawsuit brought by the City and County of San Francisco and by twelve same-sex couples married in San Francisco. The defendant is the State of California. The suit argues that California's marriage law is unconstitutional in that is discriminatory. The suit was brought after the State Supreme Court ordered San Francisco to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples because it violates current state law. This suit seeks to overturn that that law by showing that the current law of the State of California violates the spirit of the State Constitution, which is the highest authority in California.

What arguments were made by the attorneys in court? ...

Shannon Minter, Senior Legal Counsel for the National Center for Lesbian Rights asked the court to rule that the denial to lesbian and gay couples of the right to marry is drcriminatory, and therefore cannot be upheld by the constitution. It is basically the same kind of argument that was used in Brown v. Board of Education that resulted in the end of segregated schools in California in 1954.

Attorneys for the State of California, the defendant, relied primarily on tradition as a defense. They argue that a degree of precedent has been established over many years in that it is traditional that marriage is only for a biological male and biological female.

Rena Linevaldsen, representing the Campaign for California Families, a conservative anti-gay group, said, "They can't perform the basic functions of marriage, therefore it's not discrimination." This is an example of the kind of weak, circular arguments presented by the respondents, or defense, in this case.

It appears that we have an incredible legal team working on our side. It really looks as though we are going to be able to make a case before the California State Supreme Court that will, once again, rock the world.


# posted by Thomas Dunn : 8:22 AM
note: some of the info in here appears to be a bit out of date already, so check http://www.indybay.org/lgbtqi for more info